Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 12:22:25 GMT -5
Makes me think the deer reduction plan may be working!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 12:32:03 GMT -5
Well, the DNR has limited the Deer herd that is for sure.
IMO, in some areas it's been limited too much. EHD did not help either IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 12:45:39 GMT -5
EHD took out pre-hunt deer, Most of those deer would have been killed anyway, so it didn't really hurt anything. Besides, that is ancient history.
|
|
|
Post by parkerbow on Mar 6, 2012 20:29:03 GMT -5
I hear of many deer every year that are found dead of EHD, This year was no exception it just isn't always wide spread like in 2007.
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Mar 6, 2012 20:29:46 GMT -5
With the Economy in the shape that its in, i'd think that some folks that once had full coverage insurance dropped to liability to save some dough. I would if i could.
Also, i've got deer damage to my truck as i sit here now, but i'm not about to turn it in, again.
Also, from all that i've read, the deer sign in the upper 1/2 to 2/3 of the state has alot less deer than the southern portions. I think it would be a good idea to zone area's like KY does.
|
|
|
Post by lon371 on Mar 6, 2012 20:35:30 GMT -5
I go to work at 3 am. I will tell you from what I have been seeing, the deer heard has not been hurt all that much in southern Indiana.
Lugnutz, I hear ya. Lost a headlight, turn signal and grille couple weeks ago. Then again I have lived in the country for 20 years and have only hit 2. This last one just got a good bump.
Lonny
|
|
|
Post by billybobteeth on Mar 6, 2012 21:09:22 GMT -5
EHD took out pre-hunt deer, Most of those deer would have been killed anyway, so it didn't really hurt anything. Besides, that is ancient history. did not realize that 130 k deer were" Most" deer lol sounds like a low number too me
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 6:09:30 GMT -5
The most of the deer was those that died from EHD that would have been part of the harvest totals that year. You said 130K not me. Don't know what you mean by it doesn't sound high enough for you. Explain how you see it in English if possible?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 7:38:26 GMT -5
The Problem is thousands of IN Deer died from EHD. And then there were still over 100,000 Deer taken by hunters.
You would of thought the IDNR would have dropped the Does limits the next year after the big EHD Outbreak. I think they should have. IMO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 8:27:37 GMT -5
Your not getting it. Yes, a lot of deer died. But they died BEFORE hunting season, yet hunters still killed about the same number of deer the year it hit. Meaning that the number that died was not great compared with the survivors and what was left for hunters. Had the kill be half of normal, it would indicate that the kill took half the herd, which it didn't.
Basicly, the reason limits WERE NOT lowered is because the POST-hunt numbers were virtually the same as in any other year.
It's really pretty simple, but there were some areas hit harder than others, and those numbers showed in the harvest the year EHD hit and then the following year. It's over now and hunters need to STOP blaming EHD for not seeing deer. It's not the reason.
That doesn't mean that some deer don't die from EHD every year....they do. The number is a natural adjustment in the scheme of life. The good thing is EHD only takes deer from the PRE-HUNT numbers, and the harvest is adjusted accordingly. Always. It's not based on "opinion" but on facts and science.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 7, 2012 9:05:26 GMT -5
The Problem is thousands of IN Deer died from EHD. And then there were still over 100,000 Deer taken by hunters. You would of thought the IDNR would have dropped the Does limits the next year after the big EHD Outbreak. I think they should have. IMO Do you have documentation of "thousands"? The NR doesn't even know for sure. I discussed the EHD and the bonus tags with Chad Stewart and he said that the orginal cases in and around Terre Haute the harvest figures jumped right back up after two years. Therefore he does not adjust the bonus tags on reported EHD cases at any time.. EHD is a common every year occurance somewhere. If he adjusted bonus tags at every instance of EHD he would be chasing his tail. The DNR is not just in the business of growing deer targets for us hunters. thay ahve to satisfy a number of "bosses". Numbers of deer that might be great for hunters would be devestating for farmers. The DNRs job is to balance both. Timex is correct. If X amount of deer are killed by EHD there is X amount less to hunt. That could very welll translate to less deer killed as we cant kill deer that are already dead. IOW - it will be a tougher hunt than what we are used to. Two years after an EHD outbreak in a particular area you'll never know you had it. Been there, done that..
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Mar 7, 2012 13:21:44 GMT -5
Agreed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2012 12:03:13 GMT -5
This years Deer harvest was Down in Indiana, and in several other midwest states.
The Deer/Vehicle Collisions have been falling for the past 3 years across America.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2012 14:19:55 GMT -5
Some people don't understand that its not healthy to have a record harvest every year.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Mar 13, 2012 14:26:33 GMT -5
It should continue until we find some more reliable method to determine herd numbers than counting carcasses.
There is a slight reduction in kill numbes reflecting a greater reduction in herd numbers.
The hunter who wants two deer and has twenty pass within range on opening day will probably select and take two, then go duck hunting or watch more football
The hunter who wants two deer and hunts hard every day to have three or four come within range, will probably take two.
The difference in herd numbers could be down 80% and not be reflected by kill numbers.
Harvest numbers by themselves are a very poor indicator of what is happening with herd numbers, IMO.
I think deer traffic casualties would be a more accurate indicator if they were actually logged as a matter of procedure, say by county deputies. Wouldn't require much of the deputies' time to simply make some note of the location of the carcass and the date. Could even be accurized further by divvying up the count into areas of responsibility for each deputy to report the carcasses in, that way presenting fewer repetitions of the same carcass being reported. Their miles are already logged, so the deer casualties per road mile travelled figures should be reasonably accurate and already broken down by county. I don't think such a program by CO's only would provide enough road miles/info to yield an accurate picture, but even that would be better than what we have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2012 14:40:12 GMT -5
Do some research on deer population models. Harvest is only one input that is used. Obviously, if you have no trust in the DNR. You also won't trust modern deer management methods. It's pretty stupid to think that any armchair internet biologist is better prepared to manage a deer herd than a trained, paid professional.
|
|
|
Post by bowhunterjohn on Mar 13, 2012 17:01:35 GMT -5
I'd say that the DNR should pull back the allowed bonus deer in almost every county.
8 in Allen ? I've never seen anything that would suggest supporting that number
Another is the increasing number of depridation permits
Does the states deer harvest numbers reflect depridation permits filled ? Sorry I haven't read the entire report yet been busy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2012 18:51:05 GMT -5
Biologist have probably never stepped foot on 95% of Private land in Indiana.
So they don't know anything about the population of deer on all of those lands.
BTW, There are only a few dozen Biologist in IN, they have no clue about accurate deer numbers across the state.
Most Hunters and Farmers know WAY more about the Deer numbers on their land than all of the Biologist on earth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2012 19:04:19 GMT -5
Bill that has to be the most ignorant reply you've ever posted, and that's saying something. Again, research deer models, and how many states use them or rather don't use them to est. populations. And explain how some counties had record deer harvests. Note that "the biologist" said that not all counties are the same population...duh. There is no reason for a biologist to visit every farm, because they don't micro manage every farm. They manage on a statewide basis. And by the looks of this report, they are doing a fine job.
|
|
|
Post by daneowner on Mar 13, 2012 19:28:59 GMT -5
I receive and fill out a survey of all wildlife I see on my place during the first bow season each year. So the DNR does receive a report of all deer I see on my farm during that time frame. I have no ideal how many of these surveys they send out. My total deer seen was approx. the same as last year.
|
|